Feb. 7, 2013
|

by Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY

by Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY

Filed Under

ADVERTISEMENT

WASHINGTON - An appeals court denied a request Thursday to open court proceedings involving the man convicted in the high-profile slaying of a former government intern whose disappearance more than a decade ago riveted the nation's capital.

The ruling, a response to a request by attorneys for Ingmar Guandique who was found guilty in 2010 for the murder of Chandra Levy, came before a lower court judge ordered that the proceedings involving Guandique would continue to be conducted in secret, including a new hearing scheduled for next week.

"I don't think there will be any disadvantage to the public or the public interest,'' Superior Court Judge Gerald Fisher told prosecutors, defense lawyers and an attorney representing a consortium of media organizations, including USA TODAY, who had also objected to Fisher's decision to close next week's hearing and seal transcripts from two previous court sessions.

In the previous court sessions, prosecutors and defense lawyers met to consider new information that could undermine the testimony of a prosecution witness. The content of that information and the identity of the witness has not been publicly disclosed. In December, Fisher generally described his reasoning for closing the proceedings as involving "safety concerns.'' Without divulging the nature of the concerns, the judge said Thursday that in January, he had given prosecutors 90 days to resolve the unspecified security issues.

Fisher was scheduled to conduct a hearing involving Guandique Thursday, but he adjourned the session early after issuing his sealing order because of worsening health. The judge set the new hearing for Feb. 14.

Shackled and heavily guarded, Guandique was present for Thursday's session, only to be told that he would be returning next week. Guandique conversed with one of his attorneys during the brief session.

The heavy security presence, including a half-dozen U.S. marshals and court officers, was unusual for a courthouse that regularly serves as a venue for such cases.

"I am very disappointed,'' said media organization attorney Patrick Carome, who represented the Associated Press, The Washington Post and McClatchy. "I don't feel the Superior Court is doing what it ought to be doing.''

Pauline Mandel, legal services director for the Maryland Crime Victims' Resource Center, which represents the interests of the Levy family, said the lack of information about the legal issues under review leaves little room for comment. "We really don't know anything,'' she said.